Greetings,

As I came to your post of the Codex I must admit that Rianne perfectly
summed up my first impression. It seems this topic has been around since
the beginning of time and will continue to the end. I'm sure you'll want
to analyze my viewpoint in the matter as well as my words, so I feel it
best be stated right now that I'm a very proud member the Church. Just
as a karmic scholar will have a bias so will a member of the Church.
That above all probably dictates the vast majority of both our words.

And my words are not being put down here maliciously..rather, wearily.
This exact thing has happened over and over and over again. Someone puts
down their interpretation of the Codex's fallacies, hypocrisies,
contradictions, etc., and then someone else will defend the Codex. More
common then naught, however, I've witnessed, the goal of the original
poster is to impress their friends. Fishing for guildfavours, maybe, or,
in a karmic scholar's position, perhaps a sponsor for the Occultists..
Is it fair to include you in this trend, a person who I'm apparently
judging by two posts? No, it is not, but I wouldn't be surprised if the
whole realm is so very jaded over this type of thing that such thoughts
are automatic. Our roles are already defined. You are a nitpicking,
misguided Occultist and I am the annoying member of the Church who is
defensively repeating the same old words in an attempt to deflect blows
at my faith. As I mentally composed this post a thought occurred to me:
It is not history that repeats, but the public post newsboard.

For those not interested in a systematic response to Furensio, by all
means, skip right ahead. Most likely, this will only be read by members
of the Church, Occultists, and those who are mildly curious to see the
old roles filled by new people. Sometimes this type of thing seems
eerily similar to acting

Perhaps I've been paranoid by such posts, but I had no trouble seeing
the snide little comments that appeared almost everywhere in the post.
If they come across in my reply, I assure you they aren't intentional

I found your first point about the Church's name to be one of the most
intriguing. I actually never really considered where the name "Holy
Church of Achaea" came from. To me, it's always been _the_ Church of
Achaea. Perhaps the name is due to the fact that _the_ Church is the
only one with the typical hierarchical structure and which fits with
what many of us have come to associate with a church. Aside from that,
though, I can really offer no explanation. That made me think about
something I never have before.

The next point about Pentharian claiming to be Deucalion was the one
that really shocked me. This was the one thing that actually sent me
running to the Codex. A brief review of modern history reminds us that
Deucalion and Pentharian are two different entities, the former being
the One who sacrificed Himself to absorb the death's heart explosion and
the latter who emerged years later as the humanity of Maran La'Saen
merged with the realm of divine righteousness. I assume the confusion
arose when the author of the book is listed as Pentharian but the
opening line of this page is, "I am Deucalion, God of Righteousness".
This part was written by the former God of Righteousness and was
included in the Codex even after his essence was dissipated. Thus, all
the comments of the wording should be directed at Deucalion instead.

Deucalion obviously needed no words to describe His own realm. He was
the essence of Righteousness and thus knew it perfectly. If He used the
words of mortal sages, it was to put His realm into words for mortals.
Just as Chaos, Darkness, Peace, and all others can not be truly
explained with just mortal words, so can't Righteousness. You mention
that the recorded words are of mortals, and then how they were
unhelpful. Forgive me if I'm trying to read between the lines when
there's nothing there, but I got a distinct sense of "that's the best He
could do, leave it nice and vague". You mentioned that Deucalion wrote
that it was also actions, dreams, and ambitions that define
righteousness but then used only the words of mortals throughout your
post.

I've many times come across the "good and evil are subjective" argument.
I'll only touch the surface of this with one of my personal beliefs
instead of the points that we usually bring up in debates. When I think
of this I think of a piece of canvas painted with many colors. Each
color represents the realms of the Gods. One is blue, another yellow,
and so on. How should it be painted, with colors merging or with them
coming up to a distinct point and only touching another, not
overlapping? I think the second. Do War and Peace ever overlap or are
they stopped at a point? In all truthfulness, I sometimes feel that the
Gods would be offended if Their realms could be twisted around and only
true in certain situations. Nevertheless, despite the fact you don't see
the connection, members of the Church do. This was just one of my
personal views of the situation.

All of your following points are about the individual commandments of
the Codex and the ones I'm most interested in speaking about. Here, I
feel your true colors are finally showing. The beginning of your post
was crafted in a courteous manner, for the most part, and with a deft
control of language. Here, however, it just reverts to mockery. In
_every_ single one of the commandments your emphasis lies on the
supposed hole in the logic. For example: Don't steal, except when Church
leadership tells you to. Literally, _every_ single commandment is mocked
by you. What chance you had at your criticism being received
constructively was thrown at the window when it just degenerated to
this. If you have some comment about the Codex, fine, let us know, but
when it's just one big insult, why the hell should we listen to your
words? That's what it comes down to. Oft times I've heard people saying:
"Wow, you guys forbid stealing? What?! Except when the archprelate or
Divine Patron makes an exception for those that constantly victimize
your younger members? That's disgusting! You're honorless dogs". I have
witnessed people conveniently forget that we are trying to be righteous,
just, and honorable with these rules. Hell, nobody's perfect, of course,
and we've made mistakes. I've made mistakes, and I'm sorry for them, and
I apologize for them. But it's hardly fair when you downplay the fact
that these rules exist, that we try to live by them, and teach our new
members to live by them and only focus on these supposed holes that
allow the nasty Priests and Paladins to circumvent their sanctimonious
rules.

And your final point is just one long insult. Congratulations. Any
chance you had at a reasonable and mature debate that was well-received
has just been completely destroyed. Well, just file that one with all
the other common slanders.

And I just love how people can write down all these blistering comments
and then fall back on, "Oh, these are just some thoughts and questions.
I couldn't possibly truly understand the mind of a Divine". That's my
favorite, really. When people clearly reveal their opinion and then try
to back out on it *grin*.

If you, or anyone, has some reasonable other thoughts to share on this
matter I'm willing to respond, if asked. I will freely share my opinions
and personal thoughts on the Codex. But the second anything turns into
just another petty insult, don't expect myself or any other member of
the Church to bother whatsoever.

Sincerely,
Kail

Penned by my hand on the 5th of Chronos, in the year 307 AF.